A bombshell report from Australia has condemned the routine abuse of government board appointments by major political parties, warning it fosters a public perception of being led by "overpaid political hacks." The review, authored by former public service commissioner Lynelle Briggs, describes the practice as a form of "patronage and nepotism that should have no place in modern society."

For Kenyans, this is more than a foreign headline; it is a mirror reflecting a deep-seated local problem. The Australian report's findings—that such appointments undermine public trust and institutional integrity—resonate powerfully in a nation where tribalism, nepotism, and corruption in public recruitment are persistent concerns. The critical question is: what lessons can we draw from this to safeguard our own public service?

A System Eroding Trust

The Australian review, titled "No Favourites," found that while only 6-7% of all board appointments were overtly political, up to half were direct ministerial appointments with no formal process, fuelling public cynicism. Briggs noted that both major parties were guilty of appointing "friends" to reward loyalty or push political agendas. This has led to a climate of public disquiet and a loss of confidence in government institutions.

This erosion of trust is a familiar narrative in Kenya. Reports from the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) have previously highlighted how skewed recruitment in public institutions, favouring dominant ethnic groups, contravenes the law. Similarly, the judiciary has been forced to intervene, with courts quashing appointments to key state corporations like KEMSA and KEBS for lacking transparency and competitiveness.

Calls for Radical Reform

To combat this culture, the Briggs report proposed a series of robust reforms aimed at depoliticising the appointment process. Key recommendations include:

• Legislating a standard, independent, and merit-based recruitment process for all board positions.
• Banning former politicians and their staffers from board appointments for a period of six to 18 months after leaving their roles.
• Stopping all direct ministerial appointments in the six months leading up to an election to prevent what the report calls "shameless" last-minute rewards.

Interestingly, the Australian government has opted not to adopt all the recommendations, instead unveiling a new framework of principles. This has drawn criticism from integrity experts who argue that without being enshrined in law, the changes will fail to fix the "jobs for mates" problem.

This debate holds immense significance for Kenya, where a proposed Government Owned Entities Bill 2025 aims to disqualify individuals affiliated with political parties from holding board positions. The Australian experience serves as a crucial case study, suggesting that frameworks without legal teeth may not be enough to dismantle entrenched systems of patronage that have long hampered effective service delivery and fuelled corruption.

As Kenya navigates its own reform path, the core message from Down Under is clear: ensuring that public office is a public trust, not a political reward, is fundamental to national progress. The challenge now is to translate this principle into binding action.